Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of otorhinolaryngologic articles based on the PRISMA statement

Ref ID 573
First Author J. P. Peters
Journal PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing 2015
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26317406/
Keywords Cochrane
Abstract / summary
Risk of bias
Otolaryngology
Low reporting quality
Searching
Problem(s) Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Insufficient literature searches
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries
Number of systematic reviews included 80
Summary of Findings From 80 included systematic reviews, Cochrane reviews performed very well on PRISMA reporting whereas non-Cochrane reviews performed poorly on several items. The most inadequate criteria were: protocol registration, risk of bias/ quality assessment, declaration of financial support. Cochrane reviews however, performed worse on PRISMA for abstracts than non-Cochrane reviews.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes